Liberal bias

From Conservapedia

Liberal bias is partisan selection or distortion of information to support liberal policies. This bias can be expressed by professors and public school teachers, College Board exams, reporters and other journalists in mainstream media, and any other information source. Typically purveyors of liberal bias falsely present themselves as being objective. Liberal bias includes techniques such as distorted selection of information, placement bias, photo bias and liberal style. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.

The essence of liberal bias is to dismiss or even to censor opposing views. For liberals, to allow the airing or publishing of an opposing view creates the risk that people might discover errors in the liberal viewpoint. On the other hand, Conservatives typically uphold freedom of ideological expression, with many expressing that although they may oppose a liberal view with every fiber of their being, they will defend to the death their right to say it, because they believe that in the marketplace of ideas the true will always win over the false. (At Conservapedia we are not afraid to mention and even to summarize anti-conservative arguments.)

Vision of the anointed

Economist Thomas Sowell in his book published in 1996, The Vision of the Anointed, discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary culture wars, which are not about alternative policies but alternative worlds and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but morally lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or demonizing of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.[1]

Jon Meacham, editor of the overly liberal weekly magazine, Newsweek, in justifying its activist journalism, stated, “Let me say this, I don’t think we’re the only catcher in the rye between democracy and ignorance, but I think we’re one of them, and I don’t think there are that many standing on the edge of that cliff.”[2]

In March 2010, liberal evolutionary magazine the National Geographic, postulated that liberals and atheists may be more evolved than conservatives, according to conclusions by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist. Kanazawa states "people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example." Kanazawa also defines liberalism, in part, as caring about the well-being of vast numbers of people you'll never meet, and states that this "is a very new thing for humans."

However, in response it is argued that such an definition of liberalism would render Jesus Christ a liberal, who clearly taught "love thy neighbor as thyself", and who came to be the Savior of the world - to those who believe and so follow Him - and which obedience is contrary to what liberalism promotes. And that, in contrast to Biblical conservative morality, history shows that liberalism, as overall manifest today, has adopted such "new" but essentially old ways of rebellion against beneficial moral values, promoting Hollywood values, San Francisco values, adultery, anarchy, and atrocities such as are seen by such intelligent atheists as Mao and Pol Pot, whose objectively baseless moral reasoning allowed them to justify their evils, as pragmatically reasonable to achieving their "enlightened" ideals.

In a response to the National Geographic pretensions, James Lewis in the American Thinker notes that the vast majority of "educated people before the 20th century in Western countries were conservatives", but that "IQ doesn't predict street smarts or (obviously) political success on Capitol Hill".

Lewis goes on to ask,

Why has the Left ended up killing 100 million people in the 20th century, according to French Marxist historian Courtois and his team? That's the real question the Left must always be made to answer: Why does its blind "idealism" and its unquenchable power-craving lead to such disastrous results, over and over again?

His conclusions are that,

“

The National Geographic headline is therefore characteristically absurd, but it's also typical of the cultural Left today -- and of its hopeless cravings to validate itself as being smarter, better-educated, and of course, more compassionate than those conservative throwbacks to a brute past. Somehow the Left always needs to boast, and like any other compulsive boaster, it is compensating for its own feelings of inferiority...

High IQ is no guarantee of goodness. It's not even a guarantee of common sense, or of genuine intelligence outside a few limited parts of life. It's no protection against evil.
[3]

this was the common boast of the philosophers of antiquity. The very word by which they chose to be called, “philosophers,” means literally “lovers of wisdom.” That it was their boast that they were wise, is well known..[but] they became really foolish in their opinions and conduct.

The famous Bible commentator, Matthew Henry adds, "As a profession of wisdom is an aggravation of folly, so a proud conceit of wisdom is the cause of a great deal of folly."

Ultimately, the function of the so-called liberal Press is to dig the grave for the American People and American Values. No mention need be made of the closely associated lying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international finance and its masters, the Liberals.

Liberal bias in media

A 2005 report[4] by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." [5]

ABC, CBS, and NBC together have unloaded more than a thousand stories on Obama’s presidential campaign but not a single story devoted to examining Obama’s abysmal abortion record. [6]

Billionaire ultra liberal atheist investor George Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, is a very substantial supporter of liberal media. [7]

Liberals believe that most mainstream media sources do not have a bias towards liberal views, and that the idea of a "liberal media" is a myth fabricated by conservatives who are upset when reported facts do not support conservatives' opinions, beliefs, interests, or preconceived notions.

Notable examples

Liberals to Conservative Ratio

Talk to any Fox News hating-liberal and you'll here the same old regurgitated talking point- Fox is not Fair & Balanced. One network, Fox News has twice the number of opposing commentators than does all media sources combined. If you add up the major media properties; ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek -- you get a total of five so-called conservatives personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employees the following liberals.

Cuban revolution

Prime media sources as the New York Times believed and embraced Fidel Castro, who used them in his propaganda to foster acceptance in the Western world.

In a letter to a revolutionary colleague in 1954, Fidel Castro is reported as stating, "We cannot for a second abandon propaganda. Propaganda is vital -- propaganda is the heart of all struggles."

Likewise, Che Guevara, once labelled "Castro's brain," and who swore by Stalin and once boasted "I am all the contrary of a Christ (and who was an early role model for Christopher Hitchens, [8]) "stated, "A foreign reporter -- preferably American -- was much more valuable to us at that time (1957) than any military victory. Much more valuable than rural recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda."[9]

"Castro is honest," reported Newsweek magazine on April 13, 1959. "And an honest government is something unique in Cuba....Castro is not himself even remotely a Communist."

Herbert Matthews, of the New York Times reported, (July 1959) "This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist."[10]

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, the atheist and liberal founder of CNN, Ted Turner, denied that Fidel Castro's Stalinist regime ever killed anyone, as "that's never been proven." [11]

CNN, which was the first foreign media network to obtain a Havana bureau, promoted Cuba's Healthcare as model for the U.S. While it did mention accusations of serious problems, nearly all of the report was positive. [12]

Vietnam War

The Vietnam War, in which America was the victor in military battles, is perhaps the most manifest modern example of how propaganda affected the outcome of a war, with much of the mainstream media being an all too willing instrument of such, especially CBS News with Walter Cronkite.

In an exchange during one of his liaison trips to Hanoi, Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. told his North Vietnamese counterpart, Colonel Tu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."[13]

The Tet Offensive was portrayed by the New York liberal media as a defeat for the U.S., while in fact, it was an almost disastrous defeat for the North Vietnamese, as General Westmoreland and historians agree. The Viet Cong not only lost half of the 90,000 troops they had committed to battle, but it was virtually destroyed as an army.[14]

British "Encounter" journalist Robert Elegant stated,

For the first time in modern history, the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield but on the printed page and television screens - never before Vietnam had the collective policy of the media sought, by graphic and unremitting distortion, the victory of the enemies of the correspondents own side..[15]

Some journalists have admitted that their reporting was decidedly biased, and had profound effects on history. West German correspondent Uwe Siemon-Netto confessed, "Having covered the Viet Nam war over a period of five years for West German publications, I am now haunted by the role we journalists have played over there." In relation to not reporting the true nature of the Hanoi regime and its actions resulting from the American withdrawal, he asked,

What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre?... Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive?...However, the media have been rather coy; they have not declared that they played a key role in the conflict. They have not proudly trumpeted Hanoi's repeated expressions of gratitude to the mass media of the non-Communist world, although Hanoi has indeed affirmed that it could not have won "without the Western press."[16]

CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite regularly carried news reports from its Moscow Bureau Chief, Bernard Redmont. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became CBS NewsParis Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a KGB operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious Silvermaster group. [17] Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow Comintern party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war."

The single most explicit example of such biased reporting is typically seen to be the portrayal of the TET offensive, in which western media was charged with inspiring and aiding the propaganda war of the communists.

Truong Nhu Tang, a founder of the National Liberation Front, and a minister of justice for the Viet Cong Provisional Revolutionary Government - one of the most determined adversaries of the US during the war - stated years later,

The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans. It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits. (Truong Nhu Tang, The New York Review, October 21, 1982)

In addition to Cronkite's biased reporting, FBI documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act by Yahoo news, evidence that legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even promising that CBS News would rent a helicopter to take liberal Senator Edmund Muskie to and from the site of an anti-war rally.[18]

Liberal media outlets

The following media outlets, described below, frequently display liberal bias:

Associated Press, The

In 2009, instead of pursuing major, unanswered questions such as: where the "stimulus" money was spent, the true nature of Obamacare's health care takeover costs, US Army Major Hasan's terror associations, the Associated Press assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages of Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue. While the objective of good political journalism is to hold all public figures accountable. the AP did no fact checking of books by liberal politicians appearing at the same time such those by Joe Biden,Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the late Senator Ted Kennedy. [21]

CBS News

CBS insider Bernard Goldberg wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled Bias.

He asserts that an "inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."

He wrote: "Pauline Kael, for years the brilliant film critic at the New Yorker, was completely baffled about how Richard Nixon could have beaten George McGovern in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." [22]

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":

"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." [23]

During the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union was the principal ally of Communist North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the Cold War that took 58,000 American lives. CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite regularly carried news reports from its Moscow Bureau Chief, Bernard Redmont. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became CBS NewsParis Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a KGB operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious Silvermaster group. [24] Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow Comintern party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war."

The selective and editorial reporting of the Vietnam war is often cited as a manifest example of liberal bias in the mainstream media, with Hanoi reportedly affirming that it could not have won "without the Western press."[25]

Los Angeles Times, The

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the John Edwards affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December of 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8th, the mainstream media finally reported the scandal, including the LA Times. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. [26] But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow liberalDemocrats by the LA Times is more important than being a honest news organization.

MSNBC

While it is well known that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is the most viciously liberal voice to host a news program within the mainstream media, he usually tones down his anti-conservative, anti-Republican vitriol when anchoring special events like election results. But during MSNBC’s coverage of the Massachusetts special Senate election, Olbermann's presentation was more rabidly partisan than if the Democratic National Committee itself were producing the show. [27]

New York Times, The

Peter D. Feaver of the Boston Globe noted on the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that MoveOn.org ran a full-page advertisement in the New York Times accusing General David Petraeus of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without evidence, that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his credibility as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the Iraq war, and was foreshadowed by an unnamed Democratic senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful special interests, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.[28] Within a day it was discovered the New York Times gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the New York Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the liberal activist group paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.[29]
In July, 2008, the New York Times rejected an opinion piece written by John McCain, which was responding to earlier piece written by Barack Obama.[30] This came after the New York Times had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by McCain since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries. The reason the New York Times cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.[31]

Newsweek Magazine

Seen as perhaps the most liberal weekly news magazine, Newsweek merged in 2010 with the ultra-liberal Daily Beast, and often impugns evangelical Christianity. As far back as April 8, 1996, a Newsweek article promoted skepticism concerning the resurrection of Christ, presenting various theories countering the Biblical record,[32] and the transformational results of faith in such,[12] while failing to provide scholarly evangelical responses which refute their theories.[33][34][35]

Insidious attempts to marginalize evangelical Christianity continue to be replicated, most recently with the article by editor Jon Meacham (who recently compared President Obama to being like God) writing "The End of Christian America" (Apr 4, 2009), in which he opined that it was "a good thing" that America was "less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago."

In addition, on Nov. 13, 2006 Newsweek featured an article by atheist Sam Harris, who sees Christianity as "incompatible with genuine morality",[36] based upon his own objectively baseless and mutable moral authority.[37]

As noted by Don Feder[38] in response to a Newsweek article titled, “America’s God Complex – Like George W. Bush, The Religious Right Is At The Crossroads”[39] Newsweek advocates a faith that does not take moral stands or become involved in changing moral policy.

Public Broadcasting Service

The taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting Service has become a left-leaning channel for the liberal viewpoint. This despite the 1985 rule that all PBS shows must be "noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian." Their tax-subsidized programming includes celebrating lesbian-feminist choirs, “transgender” riots, and a liberal teenager fighting against abstinence education. As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism. The PBS show NOW was devoted to smearing the pro-life movement as terrorists [44] In a fake display of following the rules, 300-plus PBS stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of religious programming.

Presidential coverage

Many conservative and a few liberal commentators have remarked on the seeming extraordinary favor shown toward Barack Obama during his candidacy, and presidency.[46] A 2008 comprehensive analysis conducted by the Media Research Center[13] of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks, showed that positive stories about Obama since he came to national prominence outnumbered negative stories 7 to 1.[47] During the Presidents candidacy, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews stated, "Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work,..."

In November 2008, Mark Halperin of Time and ABC News criticized the media coverage of the 2008 presidential race, stating, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war." "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."[48]

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas is seen by some to confirm the lack of objectivity and tendency to give undue exaltation they see the main stream media often displaying toward the new leader of the United states. Referring to his perception of the President after his recent speeches overseas, Thomas stated,

"I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God."[14][49]

Media bias in education

Education in America, especially at its higher levels, is typically seen by conservatives as promoting liberalism and helping to promote moral decline. A most egregious example is the continued use of A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, which is a radical left-wing revision of history. Zinn explicitly stated that "objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable", as he advocated and practiced making the writing of history a polemic for change.

Liberals are evidenced to make up a disproportionate amount of college faculty. A (disputed) study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as Democrats and only 11% as Republicans (with 33% being Independent, and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right."[50][51][52] When they are in the faculty they then discriminate against the hiring of conservative professors.[53]

This Liberal Bias has even made its way to subjects that make up the very heart of America: The Constitution, and Christianity. Their venerable age no longer protects them from being criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, in this view the first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the economic well-being of the individual citizens. Hence it is judged from the practical standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of economic returns. The chief representatives of this theory of the State are to be found among the average American socialist, especially our liberal Democrats.

Research on the political leanings of their university professors by members of The George Washington University Chapter of Young America’s Foundation (GWYAF) found substantial liberal bias in the academy. The school’s faculty gave 92 percent of their political donations ($221,490) to Democratic candidates versus only 8 percent ($20,500) to Republicans in the 2008 primary election. Consistent with this, in the presidential election the ratio was 91 percent to 9 percent.

Similarly, the ratio of Yale faculty donations in the 2004 presidential election between Kerry and Bush was 150:3. The ratio at Princeton was 114:1, and at Harvard, 406:13.[54]

Law professor Richard D. Parker, after 35 years at Harvard University, noted, “On this faculty, there are around 100 professors or assistant professors, and of that 100, I think you’d have to estimate there would be maybe eight registered Republicans." “I’m a registered Independent…and there’s no one else in the 100 who would identify as a populist.”[55]/

Textbooks used in schools of all ages have also been exposed as promoting a decidedly liberal bias against the nation of Israel.[56] A landmark book called The Trouble with Textbooks, by Dr. Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra described results of a comprehensive study they conducted of the 28 most widely used Social Studies textbooks in the United States. The researchers found that U.S. textbooks often contain "repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry.” Examples included Jesus being called a Palestinian, Islam being "treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as Muslims believe...' The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes”, while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented.

One the glossary of book, World History: Continuity and Change, the entry on the Ten Commandments skeptically describes them as "Moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew G-d Y-hweh on Mount Sinai," while the very same glossary states the Qu'ran is a "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from G-d.” [57]

One textbook publisher, Teachers Curriculum Institute, has agreed to rewrite its unit on the Middle East after being challenged, and consulting many scholars. The San Fransisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council found that the textbooks were so filled with inaccuracies and biased that they should not be used.[58]

Professor, Larry Schweikart notes that most textbooks tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, all liberal bastions. As concerns American history, Schweikart sees the "Reagan test" as a consistent indicator of whether a book is politically slanted. The majority of books he has examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, while marginalizing Reagan.[59]

Conservative Opposition to Liberal Bias

To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "conservatives" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the ideological diversity in the nation's newsrooms. Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans in the media are "from the right" polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "Partisan Conservative Opinion Coming!" Neutral news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. [60]

In June 2009, Republicans in the House of Representatives have created the Media Caucus to fight the Democrat-aligned media propaganda.

Left-wing defense of Liberal Bias

The managing editor of Time Magazine dismissed the need for objectivity altogether, saying:

I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively.'"[61]

A Boston Globe editor, Peter Accardi, adamantly proclaimed that he would not publish reader's replies in the Globe's Letters to the Editor critical of homosexuality, erroneously equating such with racism:

"I won't run any letter that promotes bigotry against any group. You'd be surprised how many anti-Semitic letters we get, but not one will see the light of day on a letters page I handle. Same with anti-black, anti-Italian, etc."[62]

Note the convoluted logic which assumes that any criticism of the behavior of members of a group must be due to "bigotry", which is itself a bigoted attack on the critics designed to prevent any consideration of the principles or facts supporting their arguments.

Left-wing denial of Liberal bias

New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. has denied that the New York Times has a liberal viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.[63] However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of homosexual marriage.[64][65] Although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the homosexuality issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see Homosexuality in the Media. John Stossel is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20. Cybercast News Service states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and Washington Post:

“

While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."[66]

”

Statistical data

In 2008, John Perazzo, writing in FrontPageMagazine.com, presented major research findings [67][68] regarding the underlying beliefs of news media professionals.

Between 90 and 97 percent of news media professionals have consistently affirmed themselves to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion, with more than half of the respondents agreeing that abortion should be legal under any and all circumstances.[69]

Between 6 and 8 percent attended religious services regularly, a tiny fraction of the corresponding rate for the public at large.[70]

In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[80]

In the 1992 Presidential election, among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor over the incumbent Bush.[81]

All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[82]

In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio[83]

In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[84]

In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[85]

A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.[86]

In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.[87]

In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.[88]

In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.[89]

In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans[90]

In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.[95]

In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.[96]

In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.[97]

In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.[98]

In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.[99]

In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.[100]

A similar landmark study was conducted in 1990, examining the political leanings of the individuals, rather than the organizations, who were most often cited or quoted as experts on various topics in the news. The examination showed that on the subject of welfare and related issues, liberal experts were quoted 75 percent of the time, conservatives 22 percent. On consumer issues, the liberal-conservative ratio was 63 percent to 22 percent. On environmental issues, the ratio was 79 percent to 18 percent. And regarding nuclear energy, the ratio was 77 percent to 20 percent.[101]

The decidedly liberal majority in news media is similar to that seen in American colleges and faculty, which most journalists were influenced by. A major study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as Democrats and 11% as Republicans (with 33% being Independent, and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right."[102][103]

Liberal American entertainment industry, bestiality and other sexual immorality

LifeSiteNews reported:"In 46 hours of programming, NBC contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, bestiality, and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.[104] See also: Liberalism and bestiality

American Television and bestiality

The Parents Television Council released a new study, Happily Never After: How Hollywood Favors Adultery and Promiscuity Over Marital Intimacy on Prime Time Broadcast Television, which revealed that broadcast networks depict sex in the context of marriage as either non-existent or burdensome, while showing positive depictions of extra-marital or adulterous sexual relationships with alarming frequency....

According to the PTC study, some of the once-taboo-for-TV sexual behaviors that are now found on prime time television include threesomes, partner swapping, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and sex with prostitutes...

In 46 hours of programming, NBC contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery were made.

References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, bestiality, and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.[105]

draw an analogy between opponents and racists, no matter how illogical

claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false

often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while rarely saying that about a supportive co-liberal (such as Ted Kennedy)[118][119]

willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the terrorists).

using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.[120]

often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.

attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate. For example, claiming that Young Earth Creationism is false, and then refusing to allow supporting evidence by claiming that the scientists are religiously motivated.

attempting to control the definitions of words through political correctness. For example, referring to Israel as "occupied territories" or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda.

Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.

Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a "true conservative", while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles.

using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.

selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain.

↑ Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [2]

↑ Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets; Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, as published in the National Federation for Decency’s Journal; Indiana University journalism professors David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 newspaper, magazine, television, and radio journalists; Stanley Rothman and Amy Black’s 1995 study of the media elite.

↑ "One of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most prominent black supporters [Bob Johnson] said Sunday he was insulted by the characterization by rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign of her remarks about the civil rights movement." [5]

↑ Your use of the first amendment sounds like liberal logic. Careful, you're on thin ice trying to utilize that amendment. The only amendment that counts is the second. For the rest of the Constitution, just refer to the Ten Commandments for everything you need to know. --Jdellaro 14:18, 20 February 2008 (EST) [7]